Executive Summary

This is an example of the first in a proposed series of regular Unincorporated Kitsap County Pedestrian Facilities Evaluation Reports.

In this example, pedestrian facilities on Unincorporated Kitsap County roads score 2.4 out of 10 which is evaluated as Poor. This overall score is weighted by length of centerline roadway and the presence and width of road shoulders or sidewalks compared to the Kitsap County Road Standards.

Details and scores by Commissioner Districts as well as other smaller regions of the county are included in this report.

We are hopeful that future investments will improve the quality of pedestrian facilities across the county, especially around community facilities, like schools and libraries, and in areas designated for urban service - in the Urban Growth Areas.

1 Purpose

Kitsap County Pedestrian Facilities Metrics/Evaluation Report will:

  1. Provide a complete evaluation of pedestrian facilities across the unincorporated county down to the segment and side of road level
  2. Present an aggregated quality rating for pedestrian facilities in specific areas
  3. Target missing facilities critical to connecting communities or to connecting residential to local services, recreation, and shops
  4. Show measure of progress (over time) of pedestrian facilities improvements (starting with the second report)

1.1 This Draft

This draft example was prepared by the Kitsap County Non-Motorized Community Advisory Committee Special Committee on Pedestrian Metrics. It is NOT considered an authoritative source of these data and is NOT an official report of the county and should NOT be used for any decision-making.

2 Introduction

This report provides a complete evaluation of pedestrian facilities in unincorporated Kitsap County comparing the actual facilities to a minimum adequate pedestrian facility level. The minimum adequate pedestrian facility level is either a paved shoulder or a sidewalk of a certain minimum width - depending on the character of the road.

The intended audience is the people of Kitsap County and law/decision makers determining how to target limited funds for transportation development. The information should be used alongside other valuable inputs such as from the community advisory committees, (e.g. Non-motorized, Accessibility, Community Development).

Not all road segments will be evaluated. This report excludes road segments that are:

  • Inside of incorporated cities (Bremerton, Port Orchard, etc.)1
  • Local easements2
  • Highways3
  • Speed limit > 50 MPH4

3 Data and Methods

3.1 Data

Kitsap County maintains data on roads, sidewalks, and shoulders. These data all use the Kitsap County Public Works Road Log Id to identify road segments. Combined, these data allow for assessment of the quality of pedestrian facilities on Kitsap County roads. In addition, Kitsap County maintains data on the geographic representations of the cities, UGAs, LAMIRDs, and some key points of interest (like schools and parks) within the County.(Kitsap County GIS 2022a)

These are the roads that will be evaluated.
Roads by Class in Kitsap County, excluding cities, highways, and easements
Road Classification Count of Roads Count of Segments Length in Miles
Principal Arterial 5 52 5.4
Minor Arterial 72 773 106.1
Major Collector 113 891 147.3
Minor Collector 28 204 52.1
Local Access 2,385 5,344 670.0
Total 2,519 7,264 980.8

These are the sidewalk and shoulders also outside of Cities. Single sides shown. This is one example where we know the data are incomplete; for example, Silverdale Way is not in a city and is known to have sidewalks on both sides.5 For this draft example report it is okay; if the initial report is completed with the incomplete data, it will present a poorer overall condition of pedestrian facilities than is in place.

Miles of Sidewalk by Width (single side)
Width in Feet miles
3 ft 13.9
4 ft 0.3
5 ft 3.8
8 ft 0.2
Total 18.1
Note:
The minimum sidewalk in the Kitsap County Road Standards is 5 ft
Miles of Shoulder by Width (single side)
Width in Feet miles
1 ft 137.5
2 ft 199.6
3 ft 162.1
4 ft 194.0
5 ft 102.9
6 ft 75.5
7 ft 17.4
8 ft 36.9
9 ft 4.3
10 ft 4.2
12 ft 1.1
15 ft 0.1
17 ft 0.0
Total 935.8
Note:
The minimum shoulder in the Kitsap County Road Standards is 3 ft

3.1.1 Combining the Data

In order to do this evaluation, we must combine the roads data (which has information on the class and setting of roads) with the sidewalk and shoulder data (with information about the pedestrian facilities). Here, we join based on the geometries of the roads and sidewalks/shoulders.6 Because segments are different for roads and sidewalk shoulder data, a single segment of road centerline may match several segments of sidewalk or shoulder data, and less commonly vice versa.

3.2 Method of Evaluation

Each road segment is evaluated individually. For each road segment, its adequate pedestrian facility level is based on its classification and the Kitsap County Road Standards Table 3.3 and 3.4.(Kitsap County Public Works 2020)7

Summary of Tables 3.3 and 3.4 in Kitsap County Road Standards (Kitsap County Public Works 2020)
setting class characteristics sidewalk shoulder
Urban Local Road 5
Urban Local Sub-collector 5
Urban Arterial 6
Urban Collector 6
Rural Local Road 3
Rural Local Sub-collector 4
Rural Collector ADT 400-750 3
Rural Collector ADT 751-1000 4
Rural Collector DHV 100-200 6
Rural Collector DHV > 200 8
Rural Minor Arterial DHV < 100 4
Rural Minor Arterial DHV 100-200 6
Rural Minor Arterial DHV > 200 8
Rural Principal Arterial DHV <200 6
Rural Principal Arterial DHV > 200 8
Note:
Within the road standards, the minimum shoulder width may be reduced to the minimum required by AASHTO, which would be 4-8 feet, depending on the ADT. Note: sub-collector, ADT, and DHV are not defined in the publicly available road data.

Because of all of the items that are not available in the road data at this time, this draft makes some assumptions to allow for an evaluation. When the information is known, a more accurate evaluation can be made.8

Simplified Assumptions to Allow for Evaluation
setting class sidewalk shoulder
Urban Local Access 5
Urban Minor Collector 6
Urban Major Collector 6
Urban Minor Arterial 6
Urban Principal Arterial 6
Rural Local Access 3
Rural Minor Collector 4
Rural Major Collector 6
Rural Minor Arterial 4
Rural Principal Arterial 6
Note:
This is only a simplification to allow for an evaluation without knowledge of ADT or DHV on the roads under evaluation

Road segments that are explicitly excluded from the evaluation will be scored NA and not included in a summary of pedestrian metrics in an area (they will neither improve nor pull down the summary score).

Pedestrian facilities on road segments will be scored based on the sum of the score of the sides. A side of the road for a segment will be scored:

  • 5 if it has a sidewalk or shoulder of adequate size (based on road classification & standards) or a sidewalk is present where a shoulder is the standard
  • 3 if the sidewalk or shoulder is present and is minimum AASHTO requirement (like a 4 ft shoulder)
  • 2 if the standard is a sidewalk but a shoulder of adequate size (based on road classification and standards) is present
  • 1 if a sidewalk or shoulder is present and is narrower than AASHTO
  • 0 if none present or no data

Note that in the absence of ADT data, our interpretation of the AASHTO minimum is limited - we assume it is a 4 foot shoulder for this example. However, AASHTO minimums can be up to 8 feet under certain conditions.

Therefore, segments with sidewalk or shoulder of adequate size (based on road classification) on both sides of road would receive a 10. Segments with no data or with no sidewalk or shoulder would receive a 0.

Any given area score will be a weighted average of the scores of the segments within the area. Weighting is by centerline linear feet per segment. A simple example is an area composed of 4 segments.

Segment Segment Score Segment Centerline Linear Feet
A 6.0 100
B 0.0 10
C 10.0 50
D 8.0 200
Total 7.5 360

The Total Score would be the segment scores multiplied by their linear feet and then divided by the total linear feet of the area (360). For this example, we get a area score of 7.5 \[ 6 x 100 + 0 x 10 + 10 x 50 + 8 x 200 = 2700\] \[2700/360 = 7.5\]

This example shows how the aggregation works. With a weighted score of 7.5, we have to determine how that should be interpreted. We developed a score interpretation. Generally, we want segments to score a 10, right? But if it has at least a 5, it is adequate.

Interpretation of Scores for Segments and for Areas
Score At Least Interpretation
10 Good
5 Adequate
3 Minimum
1 Poor
> 0 Very Poor
0 Nothing
Note:
For a segment, adequate means one side is good or both sides meet AASHTO minimums and minimal means one side meets AASHTO minimums

NOTE TO SPECIAL COMMITTEE: a single segment can never have a score between 8 and 10. And an aggregation of an area could have a score of 9.9 and still show up as Adequate - it only gets a Good at a 10. Should we consider interpreting anything over an 8 as Good?

4 Results

First, we calculate the score overall for the county and then break it down for other smaller units of area in our community. Every score shown, except when explicitly for a single segment, is a weighted score based on the length of segments of road and their respective pedestrian facilities (sidewalks or shoulders) as shown in the example above.

4.1 Overall

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kitsap County is 2.4, Poor.

There are road segments with ratings of Nothing (0) through Good (10).

A map of the county with roads colored based on their scores shows the distribution of pedestrian facilities. Urban Growth Areas are highlighted.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 146.84
Adequate 88.39
Minimum 33.40
Poor 285.74
Nothing 465.72
Total 1,020.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.1.1 By Setting and Road Class

Looking by the same breakdown that we have for standards - by setting and road class, we can see where the scores are highest and lowest.

Weighted Scores by Standard Group
Setting Class Score Interpretation
Rural Local Access 2.1 Poor
Rural Major Collector 5.3 Adequate
Rural Minor Arterial 6.6 Adequate
Rural Minor Collector 4.8 Minimum
Rural Principal Arterial
Unknown Local Access 1.9 Poor
Unknown Minor Arterial 0 Nothing
Urban Local Access 0.4 Very Poor
Urban Major Collector 1.4 Poor
Urban Minor Arterial 1.9 Poor
Urban Minor Collector 1.7 Poor
Urban Principal Arterial 1.6 Poor
Note:
Unknown setting is scored as if it is Urban.

4.1.2 By Setting Alone

The character of an area contributes greatly to whether we would expect pedestrians. More pedestrians are expected in urban settings than rural.

Weighted Scores by Setting
Setting Score Interpretation
Rural 3.2 Minimum
Unknown 1.3 Poor
Urban 0.8 Very Poor
Note:
Unknown setting is scored as if it is Urban.

It may be useful to consider that for the unincorporated county, the roads that are designated as in an Urban setting are mostly inside of the Urban Growth Areas - these areas are identified to develop to an urban service standard, like a city. With the data and methods used in this example report, these areas are not amenable to pedestrians - contrasting what we might desire in our urban environment.

4.2 Smaller Regions

We can also look at regions and pedestrian generators within the County. For these, we identify the roads and any sidewalks or shoulders.9

Regions are already defined by an area. For pedestrian generators, we identify an area that is within a 15 minute walking distance of the facility and evaluate roads therein.10

These regions and pedestrian generators are:

  • Commissioner Districts
  • UGAs
  • LAMIRDs
  • Public Schools
  • Public Libraries
  • Transit Centers

For each smaller region or pedestrian generator type, we show a map of Kitsap County (sans incorporated cities) indicating locations of the regions of that type.

Then, for each individual region, we show the evaluated pedestrian facilities and calculate scores.

4.2.1 Commissioner Districts

Kitsap County has 3 Commissioner Districts.

4.2.1.1 1 North

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in 1 North is 3.0, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 62.88
Adequate 34.32
Minimum 9.25
Poor 88.31
Nothing 125.81
Total 320.6
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.1.2 2 South

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in 2 South is 2.6, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 60.11
Adequate 33.37
Minimum 7.93
Poor 102.18
Nothing 171.49
Total 375.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.1.3 3 Central

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in 3 Central is 1.7, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 23.85
Adequate 20.70
Minimum 16.22
Poor 95.25
Nothing 168.42
Total 324.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2 UGAs

Kitsap County has 9 UGAs.

4.2.2.1 Bremerton East UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Bremerton East UGA is 0.8, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.37
Adequate 0.21
Minimum 0.05
Poor 5.78
Nothing 12.07
Total 18.5
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.2 Bremerton West UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Bremerton West UGA is 0.5, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.56
Poor 6.93
Nothing 13.18
Total 20.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.3 Central Kitsap UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Central Kitsap UGA is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 1.07
Minimum 2.89
Poor 30.61
Nothing 43.64
Total 78.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.4 Gorst UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Gorst UGA is 1.1, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.28
Poor 1.05
Nothing 0.70
Total 2.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.5 Kingston UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston UGA is 1.1, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.02
Adequate 0.70
Minimum 2.21
Poor 2.92
Nothing 5.32
Total 11.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.6 Port Orchard UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Orchard UGA is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.03
Adequate 0.62
Minimum 3.67
Poor 13.88
Nothing 34.14
Total 52.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.7 Poulsbo UTA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Poulsbo UTA is 0.4, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.05
Poor 0.84
Nothing 1.51
Total 2.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.2.8 Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton

This area does not have known pedestrian facilities.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.2.9 Silverdale UGA

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale UGA is 0.8, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.44
Minimum 10.21
Poor 18.45
Nothing 49.19
Total 78.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3 LAMIRDs

Kitsap County has 10 LAMIRDs.

4.2.3.1 Manchester LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Manchester LAMIRD is 1.9, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 2.93
Adequate 0.80
Poor 6.02
Nothing 12.28
Total 22.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.2 Suquamish LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Suquamish LAMIRD is 1.0, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.47
Adequate 1.06
Minimum 0.05
Poor 3.13
Nothing 6.95
Total 11.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.3 Streibels Corner LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Streibels Corner LAMIRD is 7.1, Adequate.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.65
Poor 0.20
Total 0.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.4 Bond/Gunderson LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Bond/Gunderson LAMIRD is 7.7, Adequate.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.34
Adequate 0.09
Total 0.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.5 Port Orchard Airport LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Orchard Airport LAMIRD is 9.9, Adequate.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.97
Total 1.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.6 Port Gamble LAMIRD

This area does not have known pedestrian facilities.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Gamble LAMIRD is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3.7 Twelve Trees LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Twelve Trees LAMIRD is 3.0, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.22
Adequate 0.50
Minimum 0.24
Nothing 0.20
Total 1.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.8 Ecology Road LAMIRD

This area does not have known pedestrian facilities.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Ecology Road LAMIRD is 0.0, Nothing.

4.2.3.9 Keyport LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Keyport LAMIRD is 0.1, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.20
Nothing 1.68
Total 1.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.3.10 George’s Corner LAMIRD

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in George’s Corner LAMIRD is 3.3, Minimum.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.17
Poor 0.12
Total 0.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4 Public Schools

Kitsap County has 66 Public Schools; however, only 39 are outside of city limits. Here they are shown with a 15 minute walking distance.

4.2.4.1 Barker Creek Community School

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Barker Creek Community School is 0.5, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.06
Minimum 0.06
Poor 0.95
Nothing 0.86
Total 1.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.2 Brownsville Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Brownsville Elementary is 0.2, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Poor 0.36
Nothing 0.88
Total 1.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.3 Burley Glenwood Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Burley Glenwood Elementary is 3.8, Minimum.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.58
Adequate 0.15
Poor 1.60
Nothing 0.06
Total 2.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.4 Central Kitsap High

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Central Kitsap High is 0.5, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.05
Minimum 0.14
Poor 0.48
Nothing 0.67
Total 1.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.5 Central Kitsap Middle

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Central Kitsap Middle is 0.4, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.12
Minimum 0.22
Poor 0.51
Nothing 1.45
Total 2.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.6 Chief Kitsap Academy

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Chief Kitsap Academy is 1.7, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Poor 0.30
Nothing 0.01
Total 0.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.7 Choice Academy

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Choice Academy is 1.3, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.47
Poor 0.18
Nothing 0.22
Total 0.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.8 Clear Creek Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Clear Creek Elementary is 2.0, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.16
Adequate 0.01
Minimum 0.17
Poor 0.14
Nothing 0.19
Total 0.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.9 Cottonwood Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Cottonwood Elementary is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.00
Adequate 0.07
Minimum 0.03
Poor 1.13
Nothing 1.67
Total 2.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.10 Cougar Valley Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Cougar Valley Elementary is 2.7, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.30
Nothing 0.13
Total 0.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.11 David Wolfle Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in David Wolfle Elementary is 5.2, Adequate.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.05
Adequate 0.28
Poor 0.06
Total 0.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.12 Discovery Alternative High

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Discovery Alternative High is 0.2, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.16
Poor 0.82
Nothing 2.83
Total 3.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.13 East Port Orchard Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in East Port Orchard Elementary is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.05
Minimum 0.14
Poor 0.28
Nothing 1.20
Total 1.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.14 Emerald Heights Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Emerald Heights Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Poor 0.34
Nothing 1.55
Total 1.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.15 Esquire Hills Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Esquire Hills Elementary is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.06
Poor 1.20
Nothing 1.80
Total 3.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.16 Fairview Middle

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Fairview Middle is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.07
Minimum 0.04
Poor 1.69
Nothing 2.29
Total 4.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.17 Green Mountain Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Green Mountain Elementary is 1.0, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.28
Adequate 0.06
Poor 0.06
Nothing 0.90
Total 1.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.18 Hidden Creek Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Hidden Creek Elementary is 0.5, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.01
Minimum 0.39
Poor 0.22
Nothing 0.98
Total 1.6
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.19 Hilder Pearson Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Hilder Pearson Elementary is 1.4, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.28
Adequate 0.14
Minimum 0.05
Poor 0.73
Nothing 0.53
Total 1.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.20 John Sedgwick Middle

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in John Sedgwick Middle is 2.5, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.17
Adequate 0.02
Poor 0.49
Nothing 0.08
Total 0.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.21 Kingston High

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston High is 2.6, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.44
Poor 0.07
Nothing 0.07
Total 0.6
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.22 Kingston Middle

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston Middle is 1.6, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.08
Minimum 0.32
Nothing 0.28
Total 0.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.23 Klahowya Secondary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Klahowya Secondary is 8.5, Adequate.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.31
Adequate 0.08
Total 0.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.24 Manchester Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Manchester Elementary is 0.4, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.29
Adequate 0.20
Poor 0.91
Nothing 3.39
Total 4.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.25 Marcus Whitman Junior High

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Marcus Whitman Junior High is 0.2, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.06
Poor 0.44
Nothing 1.70
Total 2.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.26 Mullenix Ridge Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Mullenix Ridge Elementary is 2.9, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.52
Adequate 0.36
Poor 0.58
Nothing 0.36
Total 1.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.27 Olalla Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Olalla Elementary is 4.9, Minimum.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.15
Adequate 0.64
Minimum 0.00
Poor 0.23
Nothing 0.03
Total 1.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.28 Olympic High

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Olympic High is 0.6, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.30
Poor 0.77
Nothing 0.86
Total 1.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.29 Orchard Heights Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Orchard Heights Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.16
Poor 0.82
Nothing 3.20
Total 4.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.30 Pinecrest Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Pinecrest Elementary is 0.4, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.05
Minimum 0.11
Poor 0.74
Nothing 0.98
Total 1.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.31 Richard Gordon Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Richard Gordon Elementary is 1.0, Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.45
Poor 0.38
Nothing 0.20
Total 1.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.32 Ridgetop Middle

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Ridgetop Middle is 0.2, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.11
Poor 0.72
Nothing 1.96
Total 2.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.33 Silver Ridge Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silver Ridge Elementary is 0.1, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.04
Poor 0.61
Nothing 1.62
Total 2.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.34 Silverdale Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale Elementary is 0.5, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.25
Poor 0.40
Nothing 0.78
Total 1.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.35 South Colby Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in South Colby Elementary is 5.6, Adequate.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.87
Adequate 0.07
Poor 0.14
Nothing 0.12
Total 1.2
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.36 Sunnyslope Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Sunnyslope Elementary is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Poor 0.27
Nothing 0.10
Total 0.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.37 Suquamish Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Suquamish Elementary is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.31
Adequate 0.44
Minimum 0.10
Poor 1.16
Nothing 2.07
Total 4.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.38 West Hills STEM Academy

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in West Hills STEM Academy is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.17
Poor 0.81
Nothing 1.68
Total 2.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.4.39 Woodlands Elementary

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Woodlands Elementary is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.08
Poor 1.38
Nothing 1.59
Total 3.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.5 Public Libraries

Kitsap County has 10 Public Libraries; however, only 5 are outside of city limits. Here they are shown with a 15 minute walking distance.

4.2.5.1 Kingston KRL

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston KRL is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.23
Minimum 0.42
Poor 0.45
Nothing 0.96
Total 2.1
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.5.2 Little Boston KRL

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Little Boston KRL is 10.0, Good.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.46
Adequate 0.38
Total 0.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.5.3 Manchester KRL

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Manchester KRL is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.23
Adequate 0.19
Poor 0.24
Nothing 1.38
Total 2.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.5.4 Silverdale KRL

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale KRL is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.13
Minimum 0.27
Poor 0.43
Nothing 2.12
Total 3.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.5.5 Tracyton Community Library

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Tracyton Community Library is 0.4, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.10
Poor 0.83
Nothing 1.33
Total 2.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6 Transit Centers

Kitsap County has 18 Transit Centers; however, only 11 are outside of city limits. Here they are shown with a 15 minute walking distance.

4.2.6.1 West Bremerton Transit Center

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in West Bremerton Transit Center is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Poor 0.17
Nothing 0.16
Total 0.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.2 Silverdale Transit Center

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Silverdale Transit Center is 0.1, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Minimum 0.07
Poor 0.07
Nothing 0.66
Total 0.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.3 Kingston Ferry Terminal

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kingston Ferry Terminal is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.23
Minimum 0.36
Poor 0.35
Nothing 0.93
Total 1.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.4 Southworth Ferry Terminal

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Southworth Ferry Terminal is 0.8, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.19
Poor 0.16
Nothing 0.57
Total 0.9
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.5 Hwy. 305 & Suquamish Way

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Hwy. 305 & Suquamish Way is 0.6, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.16
Nothing 0.22
Total 0.4
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.6 McWilliams Park & Ride

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in McWilliams Park & Ride is 0.5, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.06
Minimum 0.09
Poor 1.13
Nothing 1.02
Total 2.3
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.7 Suquamish Park & Ride

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Suquamish Park & Ride is 0.7, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.35
Adequate 0.45
Minimum 0.14
Poor 1.18
Nothing 2.43
Total 4.5
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.8 Port Orchard Wal-Mart

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Port Orchard Wal-Mart is 0.3, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.02
Minimum 0.12
Poor 0.14
Nothing 0.58
Total 0.8
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.9 George’s Corner Park & Ride

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in George’s Corner Park & Ride is 3.5, Minimum.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.27
Adequate 0.07
Poor 0.18
Nothing 0.13
Total 0.7
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.10 Miller Bay & Indianola

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in Miller Bay & Indianola is 4.2, Minimum.

Score Interpretation Miles
Good 0.35
Adequate 0.23
Poor 0.41
Nothing 0.06
Total 1.0
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

4.2.6.11 St. Gabriel’s Church

This area has pedestrian facilities identified in the data; they are shown on the map for the left side and the right side of the road.

The overall score for pedestrian facilities in St. Gabriel’s Church is 0.2, Very Poor.

Score Interpretation Miles
Adequate 0.02
Poor 0.18
Nothing 0.43
Total 0.6
Note:
If Total miles here is more than overall miles it is indicative of multiple shoulder or sidewalk geometries matching the same portion of road centerline on the same side of the road. This kind of data error is expected given the state of the sidewalk and shoulder data.

5 Conclusion

Using the data publicly available and draft criteria (special committee investigating pedestrian metrics), the overall score for pedestrian facilities in Kitsap County is 2.4, which is interpreted (see methods) as Poor.

Smaller breakdowns of the county fare differently. Here, we show a table for each region type. Any region with no segments getting more than a 0, “Nothing” show up with red text. The best region of that type will have bold text, and any regions with a score of Adequate will have green text.

Scores for Commissioner Districts
Area Score Interpretation
1 North 2.98 Poor
2 South 2.63 Poor
3 Central 1.72 Poor
Scores for UGAs
Area Score Interpretation
Bremerton East UGA 0.77 Very Poor
Bremerton West UGA 0.53 Very Poor
Central Kitsap UGA 0.73 Very Poor
Gorst UGA 1.05 Poor
Kingston UGA 1.08 Poor
Port Orchard UGA 0.70 Very Poor
Poulsbo UTA 0.44 Very Poor
Puget Sound Industrial Center - Bremerton 0 Nothing
Silverdale UGA 0.78 Very Poor
Scores for LAMIRDs
Area Score Interpretation
Bond/Gunderson 7.70 Adequate
Ecology Road 0 Nothing
George’s Corner 3.27 Minimum
Keyport 0.13 Very Poor
Manchester 1.88 Poor
Port Gamble 0 Nothing
Port Orchard Airport 9.94 Adequate
Streibels Corner 7.06 Adequate
Suquamish 1.05 Poor
Twelve Trees 2.99 Poor
Scores for Public Schools
Area Score Interpretation
Barker Creek Community School 0.48 Very Poor
Brownsville Elementary 0.21 Very Poor
Burley Glenwood Elementary 3.83 Minimum
Central Kitsap High 0.53 Very Poor
Central Kitsap Middle 0.41 Very Poor
Chief Kitsap Academy 1.69 Poor
Choice Academy 1.34 Poor
Clear Creek Elementary 1.99 Poor
Cottonwood Elementary 0.30 Very Poor
Cougar Valley Elementary 2.67 Poor
David Wolfle Elementary 5.16 Adequate
Discovery Alternative High 0.15 Very Poor
East Port Orchard Elementary 0.30 Very Poor
Emerald Heights Elementary 0.06 Very Poor
Esquire Hills Elementary 0.28 Very Poor
Fairview Middle 0.32 Very Poor
Green Mountain Elementary 1.02 Poor
Hidden Creek Elementary 0.47 Very Poor
Hilder Pearson Elementary 1.42 Poor
John Sedgwick Middle 2.53 Poor
Kingston High 2.59 Poor
Kingston Middle 1.61 Poor
Klahowya Secondary 8.54 Adequate
Manchester Elementary 0.45 Very Poor
Marcus Whitman Junior High 0.17 Very Poor
Mullenix Ridge Elementary 2.94 Poor
Olalla Elementary 4.95 Minimum
Olympic High 0.57 Very Poor
Orchard Heights Elementary 0.15 Very Poor
Pinecrest Elementary 0.42 Very Poor
Richard Gordon Elementary 1.02 Poor
Ridgetop Middle 0.16 Very Poor
Silver Ridge Elementary 0.15 Very Poor
Silverdale Elementary 0.46 Very Poor
South Colby Elementary 5.58 Adequate
Sunnyslope Elementary 0.68 Very Poor
Suquamish Elementary 0.67 Very Poor
West Hills STEM Academy 0.34 Very Poor
Woodlands Elementary 0.33 Very Poor
Scores for Public Libraries
Area Score Interpretation
Kingston KRL 0.75 Very Poor
Little Boston KRL 10.00 Good
Manchester KRL 0.69 Very Poor
Silverdale KRL 0.33 Very Poor
Tracyton Community Library 0.37 Very Poor
Scores for Transit Centers
Area Score Interpretation
George’s Corner Park & Ride 3.51 Minimum
Hwy. 305 & Suquamish Way 0.63 Very Poor
Kingston Ferry Terminal 0.71 Very Poor
McWilliams Park & Ride 0.47 Very Poor
Miller Bay & Indianola 4.24 Minimum
Port Orchard Wal-Mart 0.31 Very Poor
Silverdale Transit Center 0.11 Very Poor
Southworth Ferry Terminal 0.83 Very Poor
St. Gabriel’s Church 0.21 Very Poor
Suquamish Park & Ride 0.68 Very Poor
West Bremerton Transit Center 0.33 Very Poor

While this method evaluates pedestrian facilities, it is entirely focused on the presence of facilities of adequate width and separation from cars. It is not taking into consideration the quality of those facilities. Disrepair (cracks, uneven surfaces) and encroaching vegetation can greatly reduce the usability of pedestrian facilities. Quality of facilities is beyond the scope of this evaluation.

Important reader note: The authors of this example report are aware of errors (mostly of omission) in the sidewalk and shoulder data that we were able to obtain from the County. The County does not officially maintain these records, so we are not surprised that they are out of date. As far as we can tell, these errors skew the scoring downwards - actual pedestrian facilities should evaluate better than shown here. Discriminating readers will see obvious gaps, such as Silverdale Way with “Nothing” when it has sidewalks, and Ridgetop Blvd with “Nothing” when it has mostly complete streets.

DO NOT USE THESE NUMBERS OR GRAPHS FOR ANY OFFICIAL PURPOSE

References

Kitsap County GIS. 2022a. Kitsap County Geographic Data. https://www.kitsapgov.com/dis/Pages/resources.aspx.
———. 2022b. Kitsap County Incorporated City Polygons. https://ftp.co.kitsap.wa.us/data/gis/datacd/arcview/layers/districts/cities.zip.
Kitsap County Public Works. 2020. Kitsap County Road Standards. https://www.kitsapgov.com/pw/Documents/Kitsap%20County%20Road%20Standards_200706.pdf.
Mapbox and Open Street Map. 2022. Mapbox Isochrone API. https://docs.mapbox.com/api/navigation/isochrone/.

  1. Draft excludes segments that intersect with the Kitsap County incorporated city limits polygons(Kitsap County GIS 2022b)↩︎

  2. Draft assuming Function Class 100 or 110 in Road Centerline Data↩︎

  3. Draft Assuming Function Class 2 in Road Centerline Data↩︎

  4. these are not currently identified because the road centerline data does not include speed limit, but no county road should have a speed limit exceeding this.↩︎

  5. For the specific example of Silverdale Way, there are three entries in the sidewalk data with the Road Log Id of 19515 that matches Silverdale Way, and they all indicate sidewalks on the left side of the road. Further note, all three have a segment ID of 0, so they will not match any of the segments in the roads data if we match on Road Log Id and Segment ID - an entirely different problem with the data that is not isolated to Silverdale Way. 5.8% of the sidewalk data do not have segment ids.↩︎

  6. We intersect the road data with a buffered geometry of the sidewalk or shoulder and then remove any matching roads that do not have the same road log id.↩︎

  7. revisions of road standards should be followed by review and reevaluation of these criteria↩︎

  8. Roads with unknown setting - RUCODE is 0 are evaluated to the Urban road standards. This may be incorrect.↩︎

  9. In theory, the miles of recorded sidewalk or shoulder and matched miles could be double the centerline miles if every mile had a sidewalk or shoulder.↩︎

  10. A 15 minute walking distance is somewhere between 1/4 and 3/4 mile varying by walking pace. Walking distance calculated using the mapboxapi function mb_isochrone. Isochrones use map data from Mapbox and OpenStreetMap and their data sources. To learn more, visit https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/ and http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright.(Mapbox and Open Street Map 2022)↩︎